confirmed: 0 / refuted: 0 / partial: 0 / pending: 5

Pending

Etched (published Aug 18, 2026)

Pending. Resolve by Nov 18, 2026.

Piece: etched-the-29-percent-round

The claim.

Etched’s $300M Series C at a claimed $10.3B post-money bought the entire syndicate roughly 2.9% of the company - the thinnest new-money slice of the 2026 AI-silicon set, at the only company in that set with no shipped product. The percentage is arithmetic against the company’s own round figures; the valuation is a claim.

What would refute it.

A disclosed cap table, share count, or next-round/IPO filing showing the C syndicate’s new-money stake materially above ~3%, or round economics (e.g. a large secondary component) that overturn the napkin. Post-publication datapoint already on record: the Aug 19 $700M Series D at $21B (a sibling 3.3% napkin), resolution judgment reserved to the operator.

Two Stacks (published Aug 26, 2026)

Pending. Resolve by Nov 26, 2026.

Piece: two-stacks-the-ai-compute-supply

The claim.

Both AI compute stacks converge at one chokepoint: every advanced-node path in the Western graph routes through ASML’s sole-source EUV, which itself depends on two sole-source German suppliers (Trumpf lasers, Zeiss SMT optics). The chain narrows as it deepens - 23 direct NVIDIA dependents, 13 TSMC dependents, 1 EUV supplier, 2 tool suppliers - and the newest cross-stack evidence (Xiaomi’s XRING self-sufficiency chips all fabricated by TSMC) deepened the dependency rather than thinning it.

What would refute it.

Volume Chinese sub-7nm production without ASML-serviced DUV (SMIC 5nm-class at yield), a Chinese EUV-class scanner in production use, or a Western frontier training run booting at scale on zero TSMC-fabricated accelerators; also refuted in part if the graph-derived counts (23 NVIDIA / 13 TSMC / 1 ASML / 2 German suppliers) fail re-derivation as the graph evolves.

Nscale (published Sep 7, 2026)

Pending. Resolve by Dec 31, 2026.

Piece: nscale-103-billion-claimed-21-million

The claim.

Nscale tells IPO investors ~$103B in contracted revenue against ~$100M a quarter (bookings or revenue, the relays do not say); the named deals sum to ~$51B (the August figure), leaving ~$52B with no named counterparty; the only audited lines anywhere in the group are ~$21M FY2024 (Norwegian, KPMG); Aker’s equity-method note expects results near administrative expenses through the development phase

What would refute it.

FY2025 accounts (due 30 Sep 2026) and/or the S-1 show booked revenue ramping toward the ~$18B annualized contracted claim - or they do not; Aker’s next carrying-value note is the second test

Memory (published Sep 10, 2026)

Pending. Resolve by Jun 30, 2027.

Piece: memory-after-the-sold-out-years

The claim.

Inside the memory oligopoly the post-2027 scaling paths diverged: Samsung committed the first High NA memory insertion (DRAM HVM by 2028), SK hynix hedges with one High NA tool plus a fleet-doubling 0.33NA order (KRW 11.95T), and Micron made no High NA commitment at all - while the Chinese challengers legally cannot buy EUV at any price and the next mask standard is being set without them.

What would refute it.

Micron announces High NA production insertion before 2028 (fork collapses into a rush); Samsung’s 2028 date slides toward 2030 without comment (positioning, not commitment); memory cell design stalls or 3D stacking accelerates (High NA loses purpose for memory); AI capex rolls over (fork inverts into an over-investment contest); the 2027 HBM contract round clears materially below the +50-140% forecasts (demand-crack wins, insertion dates slip).

Anthropic (published Sep 15, 2026)

Pending. Resolve by Dec 5, 2026.

Piece: anthropics-543-billion-compute-ledger

The claim.

Anthropic’s compute-procurement program, itemized and graded, totals ~$543.1B across ten priced commitments out of fourteen (census of 2026-09-14; a program total, not unique obligations): $64B FILED across two filings naming Anthropic PBC - the TeraWulf 8-K lease ($19B firm rent, 20yr/401MW at the former Century Aluminum smelter site, rent on phased delivery from late 2027) and SpaceX’s 424(b)(4) ($45B in filed CANCELLABLE terms: $1.25B/mo through May 2029, ~325K GPUs, 90-day mutual exit after month 3) - $180B company-confirmed, $299.1B press-grade (Riot included: dollars landlord-stated, tenant named only by reporting; a row grades by its weakest element); backed floor $244B; evidence quality inverse to headline size (Google ~$200B, the largest line, never stated by any party); Series H bought 6.7% at $965B post (65/965), last company-written revenue $47B (May, the round post itself) vs relay-carried $65B (end-July); zero issuer Form Ds behind the $65B raise (111 vehicle filings, re-run Sep 14); the federal arc: $200M CDAO ceiling Jul 2025, Pentagon work terminated + supply-chain-risk designation Feb 2026, OneGov terminated, two lawsuits Mar 9, the Aug 27 ruling vacating the designation as unlawful retaliation (appeal expected); every published tally reconciled in-piece (ValueAdd $275B+ / Decoding Discontinuity $254B-~$450B / The Information ~$517B: gaps are scope and vintage, not fact).

What would refute it.

The public S-1’s audited compute-commitments note and revenue line: if filed+company commitments print materially below ~$244B, or audited run-rate prints materially below the relay-carried $65B end-July figure (last company-written: $47B, May), the tier census or the trail was wrong; the napkin (65/965 = 6.7%) fails only if the round’s actual post-money differs from the company’s stated $965B; the risk factors grade against the pre-disclosure record (the Aug 6 congressional letter, the Aug 27 ruling, the essay’s committed evaluator names); the designation litigation (appeal + D.C. companion) runs to the listing.